July 19, 2016

In the news release from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Headquarters announcing a major step towards resolving last year's VW diesel engine emissions scandal, emphasis is placed on the fairness of the $14.7 Billion partial settlement between Volkswagen, the EPA and California Air Resources Board (CARB). Yes, up to $10.03 billion is set aside to compensate consumers under the program, $2.7 billion will fund projects across the country that will reduce emissions of NOx, and VW will "invest" $2 billion toward improving infrastructure, access and education to support and advance zero emission vehicles (ZEVs). Unfortunately, it appears that in the EPA's eyes, the class of ZEVs that include plug-in electric vehicles (EVs) will receive more assistance than fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). In my eyes, this unequal footing of EVs and FCEVs is not fair.

The text of the partial consent decree details how the $2 billion "investment" by VW will be "invested" over the prescribed 10-year period. Appendix C details the allowable financial assistance for EV charging stations and FCEV hydrogen refueling stations:

60-100% of the cost for EV charging stations, depending on the level of public access, but only

25-35% of the cost for FCEV hydrogen refueling stations, depending on the size of the station (expressed in kg/day.)

Obviously, it appears that the EPA (and CARB) have decided to not use a level playing field, but instead have chosen to provide over twice the financial incentive percentage to electric vehicles, relative to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

This is quite disappointing, especially due to the nascent state of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Anyone familiar with technoeconomic analysis knows that new technologies (e.g. FCEVs) are generally more expensive than more established technologies (e.g. EVs). This is due to the fact that costs always come down as technologies mature, coupled with the fact that the increasing adoption of new technologies leads to economies of replication (hello assembly lines!). On this basis alone, I would recommend that the EPA (and CARB) revise their plans, and allow financial incentives of 60-100% for FCEV refueling stations, matching the incentive rates for battery electric vehicles.

To summarize, it is good that the first VW emissions scandal settlement includes financial incentives to speed the adoption of EVs and FCEVs. Unfortunately, it is bad that the VW settlement provides significantly larger rates of financial incentives for FCEV hydrogen refueling stations.

January 08, 2013

Here is a nice photograph of the late Jim McElroy posing with a Gemini fuel cell module (container only) made from spare parts after the program ended. All the flight hardware burned up in re-entry. The documents on the table are the original GE manuals that were being discarded along with the parts.

January 05, 2013

It is with a heavy heart that I am posting this. Jim McElroy died Thursday (1/3/2012) after suffering a massive stroke. Jim was one of the true fuel cell pioneers beginning as a young engineer at General Electric and ending active at Bloom Energy and Infinity Fuel Cell and Hydrogen. He was not all that welcoming to his supervisor's suggestion to get into the fuel cell group as he did not want to spend his career designing fuel tanks in aircraft wings! Jim was a key person on the team that placed the first PEM fuels cells for a practical application in the Gemini Space Program and over the years he amassed more than 55 patents in this industry. His fertile mind was active right up until his death, guiding a team of young engineers to implement his truly innovative ideas. He was a remarkable man.

I knew Jim from my time at Giner, where I demonstrated an anode tail-gas hydrogen recovery system (utilizing partial-pressure swing adsorption) for Bloom Energy. Jim was a great guy; I am glad I was able to hear some good GE stories from conversations with him and Giner's Tony LaConti (another old-timer from the GE Gemini program who has now passed away.) We will all miss him greatly.

Representing President Barack Obama was Joseph Aldy, Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research and Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University. Governor Mitt Romney was represented by Oren Cass, Domestic Policy Director, Romney for President. The professional questioners included Steve Hargreaves, CNN Money; Bill Loveless, Senior Editor of Platts; and Monica Trauzzi, Managing Editor and Host, E&E TV. Three student questioners were also on stage.

The debate will be broadcast by E&E TV in the near future. Real-time comments could be followed under the Twitter hashtag #mitei.

The best way to report on this debate is to start with a few articles by others that summarize the debate:

Romney's Cass: "Energy efficiency is a solution in search of a problem". (This statement got the most tweets and re-tweets.)

When asked if reducing emissions is a legitimate aim of the US government, Romney's Cass said "No."

Romney's Cass: The Governor believes that some emissions from coal-burning power plants involve particulate matter that is so small that "it is imaginary." This is why they do not need to be regulated.

Romney's Cass: "Climate change is real but we're not quite sure how real." This comment got the loudest giggles from the crowd.